TED on Women in Leadership

[Tom Wetmore]

I wonder if the GC is aware of these quotes?

If the ordination issue was SO clear, this issue would have been resolved in the 1800's!

My local church has a women assistant Pastor, I think the world of her, she is doing a great job. Should she be ordained instead of commissioned? Not my call, I'll wait for the GC to decide that.

Many at the GC are aware of these quotes. They are no secret. THey have been presented in public and published before. They are easily discovered if one does a bit of research. But most who vote and speak against women in ministry seem utterly and willfully ignorant of these EGW statements and our own history.

And yes, the issue was addressed and resolved in the 1800's. That is why there was a higher percentage of women in ministry then there is now.

At the 1871 GC Session the delegates voted that "means should be taken to encourage and properly instruct men and women for the work of teaching the word of God."

At the 1881 Session the following resolution was referred to the GC Committee - "Females possessing the necessary qualifications to fill that position, may, with perfect propriety, be set apart by ordination to the work of the Christian ministry."

Some have suggested that it died there and nothing further was done about it. But after that the GC did in fact issue ordained minister credentials to Ellen White and continued to do so until the day she died. And in 1908 Mrs. J.S. Wightman is also listed in the SDA Yearbook as an ordained minister along with EGW.

[ClubV12]

I read the quotes as well, what specific part of which quote says women should be ordained?

...they don't, not one of them.

I wouldn't be so quick to call the GC "utterly and willfully ignorant", considering they are the highest authority on earth. A little respect please.

The GC has been and continues to "encourage and properly instruct men and women for the work of teaching the word of God." I think thats a wonderful!

[Bravus]

It seems reasonably clear and simple to me. We have a list of Bible verses that apparently prohibit the ordination[1] of women. We have a list of EGW quotes that apparently support it.

So, given this apparent contradiction, I see three possibilities.

1. EGW and the Bible contradict one another on this issue

2. Either EGW or the Bible, or both, is being incorrectly interpreted

3. There are important cultural differences between first and second century Near/Middle East culture and nineteenth century US culture

Naturally, I think 3 is the most plausible solution. It's also the least damaging to the position of traditionalists. I suspect it's still unacceptable to them, though.

Others may well be smarter than me and see a fourth or even a fifth logically consistent possibility. I'd be interested to see what those might be.

[1] The position that women should be fully involved in pastoral ministry, doing exactly the same work as men, but having a second-class-citizen status by being denied ordination seems untenable to me, and also to be contradicted by the spirit of the EGW quotes, even if she doesn't actually use the word 'ordination'.

[Tom Wetmore]

I read the quotes as well, what specific part of which quote says women should be ordained?

...they don't, not one of them.

I wouldn't be so quick to call the GC "utterly and willfully ignorant", considering they are the highest authority on earth. A little respect please.

The GC has been and continues to "encourage and properly instruct men and women for the work of teaching the word of God." I think thats a wonderful!

The context of what was being referenced by the "instructing men and women" was very specifically a course of study for ministers that eventually became the seminary. I have read the context myself.

Read more carefully. I did not call "the GC" "utterly and willfully ignorant". In fact I said many at the GC are aware of those quotes. I said, " most who vote and speak against women in ministry seem utterly and willfully ignorant of these EGW statements and our own history."

[ClubV12]

The women Pastor in my church is commissioned, the GC at this point finds that acceptable while the issue remains under consideration. As for myself, I don't have a position on either side of this that is written in stone. I am willing to wait for the GC's leadership and will support it.

Bravus you make an interesting point with your analysis. My ex-wife is a research chemist (PhD) and I saw first hand what she had to go through in school to earn that degree. Not in terms of study, but the incredible bias displayed by the department. She being the only woman in the graduate level classes that survived that onslaught of a male dominated science to earn her degree. Her creationist views, at the time, did not help! "Apparent" is the key word when using the bible and the Spirit of Prophecy to pin this thing down. Apparent contradiction? Apparent support for one side or the other? Apparently....

By the way, it became clear in due time that her creationist views were a stumbling block to career advancement. She abandoned her belief in God and is a devout atheist with a passion of mistrust (to say the least) for Christians. I paid a heavy price in pursuit of my spiritual quest as a result, still am. But I'm OK with that, the "journey" has been worth the price.

[phkrause]

Here's an interesting article in the AR

http://www.adventistreview.org/article.php?id=4923

[CoAspen]

Quote:

Unions can decide on ‘parity’ between male and female ministers, pending ordination study by world church

I'm confused! On one hand they speak of a need for church decision and on the other hand they speak of women being chosen by the Holy Spirit. If it is recognized that the Godhead is doing the choosing, why would 'man' want to 'check out' if God is correct??

[ClubV12]

Good article pk, thanks for the link.

It doesn't look like much has changed, other than, a now "official" position by TED on the issue. But it was already pretty clear where they stood.

Onto 2015 and the GC meetings. As I understand it they only meet every four years so if no decision is made it looks like 2019 before anything will change.

No doubt many women are called of the Lord to His service. The church currently recognizes that as "commissioned" into His service in the case of a lady. As well as lay persons, male and female, who do outstanding work within the church.

[Tom Wetmore]

Actually the GC Executive Committee meets at least 2 times a year. The GC Session is every 5 years, 2015 being the next GC Session.

The timeline for the study of the theology of ordination calls for a report to the 2014 Annual Council of the GC which could potentially put the issue on the 2015 GC Session agenda.

[Alchemy]

Before it's asked:

"TED", Trans European Division

....your welcome.

HAHAHAHA!!

I was going to ask. LOL

[Alchemy]

Women in Leadership

Preamble to the Motion on Women in Leadership

In November 2010, the Trans-European Division Executive Committee made four requests to the General Conference regarding Women in Leadership within the TED

(a) that the study of the theology of ordination is prioritised;

( that the General Conference would review and amend its policies so that the wording is gender neutral and all leadership pathways are open to male and female;

© that a variance to the model constitutions and bylaws be granted with the insertion of “conference and union presidents should be ordained/commissioned ministers” in its policy language;

(d) that the General Conference grants permission to ordain women to the gospel ministry within the TED.

We recognise that meeting these requests may take some time. Therefore we see each of them as standing requests from the TED while we wait for their implementation.

Concerning our request for a variance in the model constitutions and bylaws by inserting the addition that commissioned ministers may also be elected as conference and union presidents, the General Conference Annual Council voted in October this year to decline a similar request from the North American Division, and by common consent this was taken as a negative answer to our request.

Motion on Women in Leadership

• We maintain our Bible-based conviction that the Seventh-day Adventist Church is a fellowship of the “priesthood of all believers” and that the Holy Spirit calls and equips men and women with various gifts, including that of leadership. Ministry in the New Testament is based on spiritual gifts. It is the fellowship of believers that recognises and endorses these gifts and sends out women and men for service.

• We express our sadness and disappointment at the decision of the Annual Council. We prayerfully and sincerely believe it will damage the work of God’s people in many parts of the TED.

• We find it difficult to understand why the election of a commissioned minister by a local constituency could harm other world divisions, since a commissioned minister serving as president only impacts the local organisation.

• We believe that ordination or the “setting aside” of members, regardless of gender, for leadership in the church is made by prayer and the laying on of hands in order to confirm the presence of the spiritual gift of leadership, as the Bible teaches, and not to convey a particular quality of “priestly holiness” or spiritual status.

• We recognise that changes to the bold print in the model constitutions in the TED Working Policy must be approved by the General Conference. We have maintained this position within the TED when unions or conferences have been tempted to walk an independent path. However we request the General Conference to understand that for many this is an ethical and legal matter that strongly affects their consciences.

• We recognise that the World Church has approved a timetable for studying the theology of ordination with a view to bring a proposal to the General Conference Annual Council in 2014. We regret the extended timeline as it places some unions/conferences/missions/fields in an ethical and legal dilemma.

• We recognise that while waiting for the World Church to establish the Biblical theology of ordination, there are unions/conferences/missions/fields within the TED where the issues of women’s ordination and their election to leadership positions are matters of ethical integrity and individual conscience which may challenge the church and undermine our sharing of the Adventist message with the vast majority of the population. After consultation with the TED administration and approval by the appropriate church governance body, such unions/conferences/missions/fields may apply parity between male and female pastors on the grounds of the TED’s existing policies and guidelines for ordained/commissioned minister credentials. [tedNEWS]

I greatly appreciate the info, Brother Jensen.

I am very sad to read about the position of TED, though. They want everyone to believe the position of the General Conference is unBiblical and creating problems with legal ramifications! It sounds to me like the leaders of TED need to be converted.

Pastor Bachelor was correct in his assessment that commissioned pastors were always to be considered equal with ordained pastors. This creeping compromised being forced on the SDA Church and body isn't at all appreciated by me.

My position has always been this; If you truly don't believe what your church teaches, go find another church that you agree with! I came to the point that I didn't agree with the Roman Catholic Church anymore. I was born and raised Roman Catholic. But, in respecting the RCC's right to believe what they want, I left for another body of believers I found to be the most Biblical.

This is what those who desire women's ordination and gay rights so intensely should do! They should leave for another church or start a new church of their own. I would pray God's blessing for them and move forward.

But, this abuse suffered by those who hold to the Biblical model of men holding the God given authority in the home and in the church, must stop now!

[ClubV12]

Alchemy saya,

"They want everyone to believe the position of the General Conference is unBiblical and creating problems."

I don't see that in their statement.

I see they have made plain their position and will wait for the GC General Session to make a determination. I may not always agree with leadership and it's OK to express an opinion by pen and voice as long as you make clear you remain in support of leadership. That you acknowledge that and gladly submit, as you would wait on the Lord. This decision must be done at the highest level, not at the annual meetings and such.

[CoAspen]

Quote:

This is what those who desire women's ordination and gay rights so intensely should do! They should leave for another church or start a new church of their own. I would pray God's blessing for them and move forward.

But, this abuse suffered by those who hold to the Biblical model of men holding the God given authority in the home and in the church, must stop now!

Much anger, there is!

Since the SDA church is only talking about Women ordination and we who support that, you says must leave....what do you base that opinion on? The GC is not asking anyone to leave. What is your so great a standing, that makes you believe you have the right?

Quote:

But, this abuse suffered by those who hold to the Biblical model of men holding the God given authority in the home and in the church, must stop now!

Who or whom is being abused??

[Alchemy]

Quote:

This is what those who desire women's ordination and gay rights so intensely should do! They should leave for another church or start a new church of their own. I would pray God's blessing for them and move forward.

But, this abuse suffered by those who hold to the Biblical model of men holding the God given authority in the home and in the church, must stop now!

Much anger, there is!

Since the SDA church is only talking about Women ordination and we who support that, you says must leave....what do you base that opinion on? The GC is not asking anyone to leave. What is your so great a standing, that makes you believe you have the right?

Quote:

But, this abuse suffered by those who hold to the Biblical model of men holding the God given authority in the home and in the church, must stop now!

Who or whom is being abused??

No anger. Just clear.

Everyone wants to claim they are abused, even if they are doing the abusing. So, if you say something they don't like to hear, you are judged to be anger or abusive. But, I speak from experience. I recognize the right of churches to believe and teach what they want!

The Seventh-day Adventist Church has always, without exception, voted down women's ordination. The church has spoken with extreme clarity, but there are those who insist they can force this issue on the church. That is clearly abusive!

The NAD and the TED must accept this and fall in line. If there are people who can't accept that, then they must simply find another church to worship in.

CoAspen asked about what right I have to speak my mind. I have every right to speak my mind. I don't have the right to force my opinions on others, and that is exactly what those supporting women's ordination are doing. They have had more than enough time and opportunities to speak their minds and make their case and it doesn't hold water.

[Twilight II]

Originally Posted By: Stan Jensen

.... We recognise that while waiting for the World Church to establish the Biblical theology of ordination, there are unions/conferences/missions/fields within the TED where the issues of women's ordination and their election to leadership positions are matters of ethical integrity and individual conscience which may challenge the church and undermine our sharing of the Adventist message with the vast majority of the population.

Is not the vast majority of the population often wrong?

Should the church, then, change its doctrines and practices in order to agree with the vast majority of the population in Europe or North America if that majority disagrees with the Bible's teachings?

So, it seems to me that the change should only be made if the World Church finds that such a change is clearly supported by the Bible.

The Bible-- and not the vast majority of the population-- is the sole rule for judging ethical integrity and the conscience.

Anyone disagree with this?

NAD and TED have been secularised it seems...

[ClubV12]

"If there are people who can't accept that, then they must simply find another church to worship in."

There is some truth to this and Sister White speaks about it. However it is a delicate subject and should be approached with caution. There is no joy when it comes down to this, just a recognition of reality. The church is better off without those who would fight against it. This is similiar to what she says about those who fight against the Spirit of Prophecy. It can rise to a level where removal of church membership has to be considered!

But I wouldn't move to quickly against anyone or any group. Appearance of a position on an issue fall's short of clear, active and an obvious position.

[Tom Wetmore]

...The Seventh-day Adventist Church has always, without exception, voted down women's ordination. The church has spoken with extreme clarity, but there are those who insist they can force this issue on the church...

Actually that is not true. Perhaps you missed this earlier post

Originally Posted By: Tom Wetmore

Originally Posted By: ClubV12

...If the ordination issue was SO clear, this issue would have been resolved in the 1800's...

...most who vote and speak against women in ministry seem utterly and willfully ignorant of these EGW statements and our own history.

And yes, the issue was addressed and resolved in the 1800's. That is why there was a higher percentage of women in ministry then there is now.

At the 1871 GC Session the delegates voted that "means should be taken to encourage and properly instruct men and women for the work of teaching the word of God."

At the 1881 Session the following resolution was referred to the GC Committee - "Females possessing the necessary qualifications to fill that position, may, with perfect propriety, be set apart by ordination to the work of the Christian ministry."

Some have suggested that it died there and nothing further was done about it. But after that the GC did in fact issue ordained minister credentials to Ellen White and continued to do so until the day she died. And in 1908 Mrs. J.S. Wightman is also listed in the SDA Yearbook as an ordained minister along with EGW.

As has been pointed out repeatedly already, after Ellen White died, this Church moved backwards on the role of women. During her lifetime there was a higher percentage of women ministers than there are now. Which side seems to be forcing the issue? It would seem that NAD and TED are attempting to reclaim ground lost on this issue.

(For a perspective on the lost ground of history - http://www.sdanet.org/atissue/wo/index.htm )

As for speaking with "extreme clarity", that likewise is really not correct. Aside from the widely divergent opinions even among Church leadership, the actually votes were far from "extreme clarity". You have to understand that by far most actions voted by the General Conference are done unanimously - no votes in opposition. That would be speaking with "extreme clarity". (There was no recorded opposition to the 1881 resolution to ordain women.)

But not so with the actions concerning women in ministry. Each time it is a deeply divided vote. And each time a greater percentage of votes are in favor. As I have pointed out already, at the recent GC annual Council the vote for a variance from the model constitution language, it was close enough that if just 26 more people had decided to vote in favor the variance would have been granted.

Who is forcing whom to do what?

[ClubV12]

1881 General Conference: Subject Ordination of women:

1. A RESOLUTION TO ORDAIN WOMEN WAS DISCUSSED AT THE GENERAL CONFERENCE OF 1881. NO ACTION WAS TAKEN. THE MINUTES INCLUDE THE FOLLOWING LINES:

"RESOLVED, THAT FEMALES POSSESSING THE NECESSARY QUALIFICATIONS TO FILL THAT POSITION MAY, WITH PERFECT PROPRIETY, BE SET APART BY ORDINATION TO THE WORK OF THE CHRISTIAN MINISTRY."

Daughters of God, pg 248

No action was taken, it was "tabled" then and remains "tabled" today. There is no lost ground to recover. Now who's forcing who?

It should be noted, Ellen White was never ordained by the laying on of hands as is the typical procedure. She never married anyone, never started a church, never was the "Pastor" of a church. Her ordination "paper work" was essentially a legal issue for payment and travel purposes. Not to mention,,, she was a PROPHET!!! Her roll in that capacity hardly applies to women or men as an example for or against ordination.

Elder John S. Wightman and his WIFE were quite active in many states during the late 1800's handing out literature, traveling and working for the Adventist church.

[CoAspen]

And the beat goes on....will be interesting to see what happens but that still won't change either sides mind. I for one can not see God as Divider in the proclamation of salvation, how ever it is preached and by whom. Man will argue up until the last moment, all the while claiming no new light is available while telling others to study their Bibles. Learning is encouraged, but only if it follows certain guide lines and those who claim to speak for God agree. How did we get into this mess? By allowing women to regain their equality as created? Are we here to march in place or march forward? Why is there the desire to cling to the past as if it had some magical power for today? Do we really believe that we can fully understand the mind of God well enough to claim that we are 100% positive that no women should be ordained a pastor? I see all as the foolishness of man, from the very beginning. Christ spent how many years in direct contact with humans and still told them, you don't no me? Man made rules, based on mans interpretation of past history and cultures still desiring to control something that was never under his control. God calls people, man does not! I am not going to speak for God and say He would never put a women, his creation, in charge. Yes, in charge, that is truly the base of all the feelings, rhetoric, etc and fears of man. After all, she is inferior or she would never have listened to the serpent, a man was smarter than that! God created an inferior Creature, that women did it, that God gave to him! That was where it all started. Man knows best and God told him so!

Preposterous!!!

[ClubV12]

"Do we really believe that we can fully understand the mind of God well enough to claim that we are 100% positive that no women should be ordained a pastor."

I don't know who "we" are, certainly that does not include "me". I see Gods will through a dark glass on questions such as this.

But we do have a system setup under the guidance of the prophet to determine Gods will for His church, for His people. A system worthy of the highest respect, even Sister White followed the recommendations of the General Conference when she had no direct light telling her to do otherwise. Why? Because she acknowledged that as imperfect as that committee might be, even though mistakes were possible, it remains the highest authority on earth. Even to the point of directing the efforts of the PROPHET, and she obeyed those directions! Whatever is bound on earth is bound in heaven, such is the power of the General Conference, it is not to be taken lightly. "Man" does make mistakes, at the highest level, but once a decision is made, thats it, it must be carried out. The children of Israel wanted a King, a huge mistake, but God honored their request never the less. Be careful what you ask for, you might just get it!

Footnote on J.S. Wightman and his wife. They were powerful workers for the Lord, evangelists of some reknown. Raising churches, invited speakers to Legislaters, well respected, diligent, hard working. J. S. Wightman was a strong supporter for women being ordained, in those days, like today, women were essentially "commissioned", not "ordained". They were licensed Ministers is another way to say it. This was a constant bur under John S. Wightmans saddle that his wife was not duly recognized as his equal. Eventually these great workers for the Adventist cause came to a dispute with Ellen White, specifically over Volume 9 of the Testimonies. They turned their backs on the church, denounced Ellen White as a false prophet and left the Adventist church. It's always very sad to see such bright lights go out.

[Tom Wetmore]

1881 General Conference: Subject Ordination of women:

1. A RESOLUTION TO ORDAIN WOMEN WAS DISCUSSED AT THE GENERAL CONFERENCE OF 1881. NO ACTION WAS TAKEN. THE MINUTES INCLUDE THE FOLLOWING LINES:

"RESOLVED, THAT FEMALES POSSESSING THE NECESSARY QUALIFICATIONS TO FILL THAT POSITION MAY, WITH PERFECT PROPRIETY, BE SET APART BY ORDINATION TO THE WORK OF THE CHRISTIAN MINISTRY."

Daughters of God, pg 248

No action was taken, it was "tabled" then and remains "tabled" today. There is no lost ground to recover. Now who's forcing who?

The text of what you quoted is misleading. The first 3 lines are not a pat of the minutes. That is commentary written by someone 100 years after the fact.

Action was taken. It was not tabled. The action that was taken was that it was referred to the GC Committee. And it was that committee that soon thereafter issued the ordination credentials to Ellen White. That is rather clear action.

Originally Posted By: ClubV12

It should be noted, Ellen White was never ordained by the laying on of hands as is the typical procedure. She never married anyone, never started a church, never was the "Pastor" of a church. Her ordination "paper work" was essentially a legal issue for payment and travel purposes. Not to mention,,, she was a PROPHET!!! Her roll in that capacity hardly applies to women or men as an example for or against ordination.

OK. We have been over this many times already. But to summarize. We are not a religion of rituals. That laying on of hands did or did not occur is beside the point. It is a means of recognizing and declaring a fact. The credential issued and signed by officers of the General Conference, our highest church authority on earth, has the very same importance and meaning. If it did not mean what it said, you are in fact saying those GC officers were lying, committing an act of fraud. That was not the only possible credential they could have given her for the purposes you suggest. It meant fully and exactly what it plainly says on its face. The GC recognized her and that they had set her apart as an ordained minister.

Originally Posted By: ClubV12

Elder John S. Wightman and his WIFE were quite active in many states during the late 1800's handing out literature, traveling and working for the Adventist church.

They were both ministers. And as I have explained before, at that time it was customary for husband and wife ministry teams to carry a joint credential issued to both of them. After John Wightman died, the credential was issued to her as she continued her ministry alone.

[Tom Wetmore]

Here is the link to the GC Session minutes - http://www.adventistarchives.org/docs/GCB/GCB1863-88.pdf#view=fit

And here is the complete unedited text of the minutes for that day:

Quote:

196--GCS 63-88

FIFTH MEETING, DECEMBER 5, 1881, 10 A.M.

Prayer by Elder Loughborough. Minutes of last meeting read and approved.

Brother J. N. Loughborough was cordially welcomed as a delegate from England.

The resolution touching the separation of the primary department from the College proper, which had been postponed till after the meeting of the Educational Society, was now called up, and adopted.

196--GCS 63-88

The question in reference to ministers' moving to Battle Creek was taken from the table, and after being discussed by A. O. Burrill, W. H. Littlejohn, and J. O. Corliss, was referred back to the Committee on Resolutions.

RESOLVED, That the chair be requested to appoint a committee of five brethren, whose duty it shall be to arrange a systematic course of reading for the ministers of our denomination. Adopted.

The following-named brethren were thereupon appointed as said committee: J. N. Loughborough, W. H. Littlejohn, D. M. Canright, S. H. Lane, and E. R. Jones.

RESOLVED, That all candidates for license and ordination should be examined with reference to their intellectual and spiritual fitness for the successful discharge of the duties which will devolve upon them as licentiates and ordained ministers.

This was spoken to by D. M. Canright, D. H. Lamson, W. H. Littlejohn, S. H. Lane, G. C. Tenney, E. R. Jones, W. C. White, A. S. Hutchins, and R. M. Kilgore, and adopted.

RESOLVED, That females possessing the necessary qualifications to fill that position, may, with perfect propriety, be set apart by ordination to the work of the Christian ministry.

This was discussed by J. O. Corliss, A. C. Bourdeau, E. R. Jones, D. H. Lamson, W. H. Littlejohn, A. S. Hutchins, D. M. Canright, and J. N. Loughborough, and referred to the General Conference Committee.

RESOLVED, That we deeply sympathize with our beloved brother, Elder J. N. Andrews, in his present condition of physical prostration, and that we will continue to pray most earnestly that the God of all grace may restore him to perfect health.

This resolution received the hearty indorsement of those present, as expressed by a unanimous vote.

WHEREAS, We recognize the manifestation of spiritual gifts, especially the spirit of prophecy, as one of the distinguishing features of the work of the third angel's message, and—

WHEREAS, We fully believe that the neglect of these gifts and of the special instruction given us through them, will surely result in a decline of spirituality and true godliness among us as a people; therefore—

RESOLVED, That we urgently recommend to all our ministers that they

197--GCS 63-88

frequently present before our brethren, in our older churches as well as among those more recently brought to the faith, the plain teaching of the Scriptures concerning the perpetuity of these gifts, and the great importance of carefully heeding the precious instruction given us through this agency. Adopted.

Adjourned to call of chair.

[ClubV12]

I'll stand by my post Tom. 196--GCS 63-88 does not indicate ANY women were ordained as a result of GC action.

There is no evidence Mrs. Wightman was EVER ordained, or any other woman for that matter. Women were essentially "commissioned" all though they used a different term in those days. Licentiates, sometimes, Licensed minister was common, this did not mean they, or men with a similiar title, were ordained. When the Wightmans transfered from back east to California, that state assumed that Mrs. Wightman was an ordained minister along with her husband. That mistake and various entries in publications were later corrected, as she was not.

Elder Wightman and his wife left the Adventist church and denounced Sister White as a false prophet before Elder Wightmans death. After his death she continued her work much as she had done before. Which was primarily focused on civil rights.

Ellen Whites official title with the GC is irrelevant because of her status as a recognized prophet. It should be noted, again, she did not perform any of the customary duties of a Pastor or an Evangelist. Her calling was unique, she was a messenger. At any rate, Ellen White, like her contemporary women licensed ministers was not ordained as they and we today understand the term. By the laying on of hands.

[CoAspen]

Quote:

OK. We have been over this many times already. But to summarize. We are not a religion of rituals. That laying on of hands did or did not occur is beside the point. It is a means of recognizing and declaring a fact. The credential issued and signed by officers of the General Conference, our highest church authority on earth, has the very same importance and meaning. If it did not mean what it said, you are in fact saying those GC officers were lying, committing an act of fraud. That was not the only possible credential they could have given her for the purposes you suggest. It meant fully and exactly what it plainly says on its face. The GC recognized her and that they had set her apart as an ordained minister.

Just in case someone missed it!!!!

[CoAspen]

Quote:

But we do have a system setup under the guidance of the prophet to determine Gods will for His church, for His people.

Does that statement sound familiar, describe anything that SDA's disagree with???

One guess only!!!